3 ms·

I skimmed the actual legal filing [+]. The TLDR; is that the Tesla repeatedly portrays the technology as (1) better than it actually is (2) closer than it actua

I skimmed the actual legal filing [+]. The TLDR; is that the Tesla repeatedly portrays the technology as (1) better than it actually is (2) closer than it actually is to being fully ready. The basis of relief is violation of implied warranties and false advertising. I think its going to be interesting if this case actually proceeds forward. [+] https://www.classaction.org/media/matsko-v-tesla-inc-et-al.pdf https://www.classaction.org/media/matsko-v-tesla-inc-et-al.p...

lesuorac 4y ago
> The video begins with the following message: “The person in the driver’s seat is only there for legal reasons. He is not driving anything. The car is driving itself.” In reality, Tesla employees made the video would later reveal that the car in the video had significant assistance from commercial mapping software not available to Tesla customers, and that the car still performed poorly and even ran into a fence during filming. With the assistance of a large team of Tesla engineers, the car had to run the same route over and over again before Tesla got acceptable video that appeared to show a car capable of driving itself Ok, I revise my take. That looks like fraud.
- jgalt212 4y ago
  > and that the car still performed poorly and even ran into a fence during filming Well, at least they didn't have to push in down a hill to gather enough speed to reach the fence.